Mexico Vs Ulster ultimate epic super build up thread.

Interested Observer

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Bit early for a statement like that


SOB hasn't been in good form but he has 6 months to get back into form. He had a long time out due to injury so of course it will take him time to find his form

SOB is a victim of his own success, only because he has come back from injury before and was incredible we suddenly expect the same. He is older, it will take time


If SOB gets a good 6 months of game time and gets some form he is still one of the few World Class players that Ireland have....

There is no evidence he's still a world class player. He was 18 months ago.

Shefwedfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

There is no evidence he's still a world class player. He was 18 months ago.

So he is back playing 2 months now? maybe 4 games so far



Murray has had longer back from his injury and played a lot more games and I don't see the same comments about him

Buer

The odds on SOB having 6 months uninjured must be quite long at this point.

Clegg

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So he is back playing 2 months now? maybe 4 games so far



Murray has had longer back from his injury and played a lot more games and I don't see the same comments about him

I don't know about that. There's a lot of people on here questioning his form. But just as many making excuses still I suppose.

Interested Observer

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So he is back playing 2 months now? maybe 4 games so far



Murray has had longer back from his injury and played a lot more games and I don't see the same comments about him

There's been loads of talk about Murray, on places like this and in the media. I have no idea what he has to do with it anyway. 'But Murray' is not a response to hoe SOB is playing.

is_that_so

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Bit early for a statement like that


SOB hasn't been in good form but he has 6 months to get back into form. He had a long time out due to injury so of course it will take him time to find his form

SOB is a victim of his own success, only because he has come back from injury before and was incredible we suddenly expect the same. He is older, it will take time


If SOB gets a good 6 months of game time and gets some form he is still one of the few World Class players that Ireland have....

That remains to be seen. He has not been world class or anything near it. Will he find that class? At the top level I'm not sure he can but he should certainly hit the right standard for Leinster.

Former Former

Clegg wrote: »

I don't know about that. There's a lot of people on here questioning his form. But just as many making excuses still I suppose.

It's irrelevant now. He's the only openside we have left. We all have to hope he gets back to top form, and that he stays fit.

Henry Ford III

Saw the highlights a while ago. Have a look at Larmour's effort to tackle Stockdale in the botched try incident. It's like an U12s defensive effort.

joseywhales

I think what irks some people is not when others talk about him still struggling for form which is just factually correct but to use a term like "deserve" is just stupid, "deserve" has nothing to do with it, if it did, he for one would deserve to hit form given the struggles and effort he has put into his career. If he is the best available (and he probably is now, maybe deegan can apply pressure) then he plays, it's a simple as that and hopefully he can stay injury free. It is not in Cullens or anyone else's interest to play him if they dont think he can make a difference for the team. Surely that's what we as supporters hope for.

Shefwedfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

There's been loads of talk about Murray, on places like this and in the media. I have no idea what he has to do with it anyway. 'But Murray' is not a response to hoe SOB is playing.

The original post was

Gutted about leavy. Means SOB will go to Japan now when he doesnt deserve it. SOB is so past it.


As I said it is very early to make a call like that. I used Murray as a reference of a player coming back from injury. I don't hear anything saying Murray is past it and shouldn't go to Japan

If people are writing off SOB 6 months out from a WC then should we write off Murray etc who are all out of form?

Larbre34

Just human enough to type again and finished out a great night in the Lansdowne clubhouse.

Very proud of the way we styled out a win without the spine of our team playing. The Ulster woman sat beside me was proper upset though.

I think we need to deal with the fact that Jordan Larmour is not, nor will never likely be, a fullback. And we need to train someone in who can be, for me Adam Byrne.

Clegg

Larbre34 wrote: »

Just human enough to type again and finished out a great night in the Lansdowne clubhouse.

Very proud of the way we styled out a win without the spine of our team playing. The Ulster woman sat beside me was proper upset though.

I think we need to deal with the fact that Jordan Larmour is not, nor will never likely be, a fullback. And we need to train someone in who can be, for me Adam Byrne.

Ah here. Larnour is still just 21and only in his first full season as a professional.

Give him a chance.

Henry Ford III

Clegg wrote:

Ah here. Larnour is still just 21and only in his first full season as a professional.

No excuse for that "tackle". Is Kearney teaching him how to avoid them?

is_that_so

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The original post was

Gutted about leavy. Means SOB will go to Japan now when he doesnt deserve it. SOB is so past it.


As I said it is very early to make a call like that. I used Murray as a reference of a player coming back from injury. I don't hear anything saying Murray is past it and shouldn't go to Japan

If people are writing off SOB 6 months out from a WC then should we write off Murray etc who are all out of form?

Questions have been asked about both. In the case of SOB, we do have alternatives but he really does need to show form. Number 9 is more of a problem so we need to persevere with him and try to get him right.

It's not really six months anyway, not in playing time. At most it's 10-12 games.

Larbre34

Clegg wrote: »

Ah here. Larnour is still just 21and only in his first full season as a professional.

Give him a chance.

Im not talking about mistakes, im talking about fundamentals, size, range, aerial skill, awareness radar.

He is an excellent natural player, a finisher and playmaker out of top drawer, but we shouldn't be asking of him what he cannot do well. It doesn't serve him or the club.

Former Former

Larbre34 wrote: »

Just human enough to type again and finished out a great night in the Lansdowne clubhouse.

Very proud of the way we styled out a win without the spine of our team playing. The Ulster woman sat beside me was proper upset though.

I think we need to deal with the fact that Jordan Larmour is not, nor will never likely be, a fullback. And we need to train someone in who can be, for me Adam Byrne.

Larmour is a long way from the finished article and has some massive gaps yet to fill.

But I'd struggle to see by what metric Adam Byrne is the solution.

Squidgy Black

I mean Byrne is bigger and has superior aerial presence, but his positioning and defending on the wing would certainly be a massive flaw at full back. Larmour is a massive attacking threat in open space as well.

Larbre34

Anyway, we shouldn't be needing to have that conversation while a couple of our best fullback products are down in Limerick.

Henshaw maybe? ill get my coat.....

Clegg

I don't disagree with the view that Larmour has a lot of improving to do to be a great full back. His positioning needs a lot of work. In the game against Argentina last November his deep lying position was exploited by them kicking high but shallow. He was dragged out and missed a few catches. Yesterday he was positioned too high up and Cooney put in a beauty of a kick to force us into a defensive lineout in our 22.

Better better positioning will only come with more exposure to the full back position. Until this season he'd played the majority of his rugby at centre or the wing. So of course he's not fully comfortable there yet. Let's not forget he has tremendous upside. He's a devastating counter-attacker and very good finisher. He's also displayed a solid range of passing as well. He can get the blinkers on at times and not pass when he should, but again he's just 21. He has enormous potential and should be persisted with.

Dubinusa

RK is also most likely not at the required level. Larmour was picked. Obviously, RK is not lighting up in training.
Larmour is most likely a wing imo. But, he could be a great fb.
I think Jordi may travel to Japan. He looked so much better than SOB.

The Rape of Lucretia

1) Damn good game. Crikey, but the other footballs are no match for rugby for sheer entertainment. (Ulster fans were a bit raucous, but fair play to them for turning out in fine numbers).

2) The idea that Ulster was the better team, or deserved to win, is nonsense.
There is a tendency sometimes to be misled by an underdog team with few stars, playing against a significantly better team on paper, who work their socks off, make one-of-those 'unlucky' rare mistakes, and who give the bigger team a real fright but dont quite pull it off. And to feel that they deserved more for their effort. But that is a mistake. Ulster could have won. But that Leinster did is entirely just. Leinster was the better team. Ulster work rate and rush defence, especially in the 1st half seriously disrupted Leinster. But they were still not far off. And in the second half Leinster just had the edge.

3) The contention that Stockdale should focus on what he did so well, and forget the brainfart is mistaken. It was a bad mistake.
What went so well to lead to that point is non excuse for it. And particularly if he has history in this manner. He must get it corrected. Earls, for example, would have been shooting for the line like a dart. Stockdale is very impressive though.

4) Much has been made of Stockdale letting Leinster off. But I would see Ringrose gifting of a try as the same thing. Ulster were handed that try. They had to put it away. But didnt make it, other than by their urgent pressure - but Ringrose made the mistake of 7 points, the same as Stockdale. The two balanced out.

5) Larmour is a problem. And an opportunity. But for the moment a problem.
He is a great rugby athlete, and very talented. But he is not at all a great rugby player. His positioning and read of the game are poor. His is too prone to trying to do it all himself, like a player whose honed habits and instincts are from his school or underage days when his talent was simply leagues above his opposition more often than not. In strong contrast to the likes of Ringrose, Leavy, Ryan or Van der Flier from recent years, who were doing the right thing and looking to the manor born from the first steps in top flight rugby, Larmous looks at sea. Its a pity Larmour wont be getting much more Joe time. He needs some serious coaching.

6) Leavy. Well feckity, feck, feck, feck. A serious blow for the guy, Leinster, and Ireland's world cup chances, which took another serious dent last night.

7) Leinster saw out the game, one that was of the highest intensity to the last moment, with only 5 players most would generally agree would be in a first 15. And, for that period; standoff, 1st centre, and 2nd centre, were players out of position. That was pretty impressive.

8) Despite the Ulster pressure in the first 40, the Ringrose gift, and added misses from Byrne, flattered them a little. It wasnt that they were not playing well, and on top, but there was a swing there of 12 points that could as easily not have gone their way. They were bossing much of the game. But its another thing to nail points to the board.

9) Conan. Very fine game. I have been critical and sceptical. And with reason I still think. Particularly on the basis of him not producing really big performance in big games that suggest he is international level. But he delivered last night in spades. Fair play. Ryan, and Fardy were also very good through the second half. As good as Conan, but I wouldnt begrudge him his MOM at all. Try assist was excellent. (McGrath should have been swifter too him and offered a better inside option which could have cost us - Byrne did very well to close out the more difficult finish).

10) SOB was pretty good I thought. The obituaries are maybe just a tad premature. And by jingo do we need him now.

errlloyd

462 tackles in total according to ESPN. Anyone ever seen a stat close to that?

Paul Smeenus

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

1) Damn good game. Crikey, but the other footballs are no match for rugby for sheer entertainment. (Ulster fans were a bit raucous, but fair play to them for turning out in fine numbers).

2) The idea that Ulster was the better team, or deserved to win, is nonsense.
There is a tendency sometimes to be misled by an underdog team with few stars, playing against a significantly better team on paper, who work their socks off, make one-of-those 'unlucky' rare mistakes, and who give the bigger team a real fright but dont quite pull it off. And to feel that they deserved more for their effort. But that is a mistake. Ulster could have won. But that Leinster did is entirely just. Leinster was the better team. Ulster work rate and rush defence, especially in the 1st half seriously disrupted Leinster. But they were still not far off. And in the second half Leinster just had the edge.

3) The contention that Stockdale should focus on what he did so well, and forget the brainfart is mistaken. It was a bad mistake.
What went so well to lead to that point is non excuse for it. And particularly if he has history in this manner. He must get it corrected. Earls, for example, would have been shooting for the line like a dart. Stockdale is very impressive though.

4) Much has been made of Stockdale letting Leinster off. But I would see Ringrose gifting of a try as the same thing. Ulster were handed that try. They had to put it away. But didnt make it, other than by their urgent pressure - but Ringrose made the mistake of 7 points, the same as Stockdale. The two balanced out.

5) Larmour is a problem. And an opportunity. But for the moment a problem.
He is a great rugby athlete, and very talented. But he is not at all a great rugby player. His positioning and read of the game are poor. His is too prone to trying to do it all himself, like a player whose honed habits and instincts are from his school or underage days when his talent was simply leagues above his opposition more often than not. In strong contrast to the likes of Ringrose, Leavy, Ryan or Van der Flier from recent years, who were doing the right thing and looking to the manor born from the first steps in top flight rugby, Larmous looks at sea. Its a pity Larmour wont be getting much more Joe time. He needs some serious coaching.

6) Leavy. Well feckity, feck, feck, feck. A serious blow for the guy, Leinster, and Ireland's world cup chances, which took another serious dent last night.

7) Leinster saw out the game, one that was of the highest intensity to the last moment, with only 5 players most would generally agree would be in a first 15. And, for that period; standoff, 1st centre, and 2nd centre, were players out of position. That was pretty impressive.

8) Despite the Ulster pressure in the first 40, the Ringrose gift, and added misses from Byrne, flattered them a little. It wasnt that they were not playing well, and on top, but there was a swing there of 12 points that could as easily not have gone their way. They were bossing much of the game. But its another thing to nail points to the board.

9) Conan. Very fine game. I have been critical and sceptical. And with reason I still think. Particularly on the basis of him not producing really big performance in big games that suggest he is international level. But he delivered last night in spades. Fair play. Ryan, and Fardy were also very good through the second half. As good as Conan, but I wouldnt begrudge him his MOM at all. Try assist was excellent. (McGrath should have been swifter too him and offered a better inside option which could have cost us - Byrne did very well to close out the more difficult finish).

10) SOB was pretty good I thought. The obituaries are maybe just a tad premature. And by jingo do we need him now.

LEINSTER R BRILL.

The Rape of Lucretia

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

LEINSTER R BRILL.

Oh, no doubt. They certainly are. And their strength in depth is phenomenal for a club team. But what they got last night was a reminder that you still have to work damn hard to win against lesser teams who are willing to give everything to beat you, and have figured a good game plan to disrupt you. Rugby holds little room for complacency. They will have to up their game if they are to overcome Toulouse, so it will be interesting to see if they learned their lesson.

A downside of Leinster's situation is that they dont really have to fight for many games in a season. Before last night, they had effectively only had 2 or 3 tough games that mattered. All Pro 14 games, are pretty much practice games - there is no pressure in losing one - qualifying was a done deal from the start, and many teams fielded are far far from the 1st choice, and really just development games for the 2nd and 3rd string. That can become a bad habit. And when you meet a different proposition as Ulster were yesterday, in a knock out game where there is no next week, it can be a jolt to the system. But the system held, if only just. And despite the extensive injury list. So that is a good thing.

Paul Smeenus

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Oh, no doubt. They certainly are. And their strength in depth is phenomenal for a club team. But what they got last night was a reminder that you still have to work damn hard to win against lesser teams who are willing to give everything to beat you, and have figured a good game plan to disrupt you. Rugby holds little room for complacency. They will have to up their game if they are to overcome Toulouse, so it will be interesting to see if they learned their lesson.

A downside of Leinster's situation is that they dont really have to fight for many games in a season. Before last night, they had effectively only had 2 or 3 tough games that mattered. All Pro 14 games, are pretty much practice games - there is no pressure in losing one - qualifying was a done deal from the start, and many teams fielded are far far from the 1st choice, and really just development games for the 2nd and 3rd string. That can become a bad habit. And when you meet a different proposition as Ulster were yesterday, in a knock out game where there is no next week, it can be a jolt to the system. But the system held, if only just. And despite the extensive injury list. So that is a good thing.

4/10

Not enough bullet points telling me why Leinster are wondrous.

Paul Smeenus

Although, in all seriousness, I agree with your second post.

In fact, I agreed with most of your first, it's just that the lack of self-awareness was very funny.

Interested Observer

I disagree with point 2, I don't think there could have been any huge complaint if Ulster won, they'd rightly be getting the plaudits.

Paul Smeenus

Interested Observer wrote: »

I disagree with point 2, I don't think there could have been any huge complaint if Ulster won, they'd rightly be getting the plaudits.

I don't think that TROL thought they couldnt win, he was just welling up at the idea someone, somewhere wasn't giving Leinster their due praise.

He is wrong on SOB, though.

The Rape of Lucretia

Interested Observer wrote: »

I disagree with point 2, I don't think there could have been any huge complaint if Ulster won, they'd rightly be getting the plaudits.

I wouldnt have complained if they had either. And applauded them. They would have deserved if that had been the outcome. What I dont agree with are some of the suggestions that Ulster were better and Leinster won with an inferior performance to Ulster's. It was pretty much a dead heat. And for Leinster to edge it, despite being rocked onto the back foot for the first 40, and ship a lot of personnel disruption, means carping about Ulster deserving the win more, is a mistake. It was very fine margins. And Leinster squeaked it.

Paul Smeenus

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I wouldnt have complained if they had either. And applauded them. They would have deserved if that had been the outcome. What I dont agree with are some of the suggestions that Ulster were better and Leinster won with an inferior performance to Ulster's. It was pretty much a dead heat. And for Leinster to edge it, despite being rocked onto the back foot for the first 40, and ship a lot of personnel disruption, means carping about Ulster deserving the win more, is a mistake. It was very fine margins. And Leinster squeaked it.

"carping"